Supreme Court won't restore immigration judges' power to pause deportation cases

As of 5:54 p.m. ET, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to restore immigration judges' authority to temporarily set aside deportation cases, leaving in place an agreement between the Trump administration and Texas that ended the practice.

The court denied an emergency application from the cities of Baltimore, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbus, Ohio, along with the immigrant legal services provider Centro Legal de la Raza, according to the court's docket. The application had been submitted to Justice Samuel Alito, who referred it to the full court. The brief, unsigned order gave no explanation, which is common for emergency requests, and there were no noted dissents, Reuters and SCOTUSblog reported. The case is City of Baltimore, Maryland v. Texas, No. 26A500.

What administrative closure is

Administrative closure lets an immigration judge pause a deportation case and take it off the active docket, for example while a separate proceeding that could prevent removal is pending, such as a visa petition or an appeal of a criminal conviction, Reuters reported. The practice was used for decades and has been applied in hundreds of thousands of cases, according to Reuters.

The Biden administration formally codified the practice in a 2024 rule issued by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review. Under the rule, judges could pause proceedings so that, for example, a crime victim or witness could seek relief such as asylum from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, SCOTUSblog reported. After President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025, the review office said it would not defend the rule against a legal challenge.

A same-day deal

Texas sued over the rule on June 22 in federal court in Wichita Falls, arguing that it lets immigration judges "effectively grant indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country," Reuters reported. Within hours, Texas and the Justice Department jointly asked Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor to enter a judgment declaring the rule unlawful. O'Connor approved it the same day, throwing out the rule nationwide and barring the review office from adopting a similar rule in the future, according to SCOTUSblog.

O'Connor later rejected the cities' and Centro Legal's bid to join the case and defend the rule, finding they lacked standing. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the agreement on hold during their appeal.

The arguments

The challengers told the Supreme Court that the administration used "manufactured litigation" with an "ideologically aligned" Texas to get rid of a regulation it disliked, Reuters reported. "The need for interim relief is underscored by the collusion that infected this suit from its inception," they wrote. Their lawyer, Joshua Salzman of Democracy Forward, argued that letting the judgment stand would allow any agency to bypass federal rulemaking law by refusing to defend a disfavored rule, SCOTUSblog reported.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the challengers were trying to turn a dispute over whether they could join the case into "a far-reaching attack on the merits," according to SCOTUSblog. Texas told the justices that pausing O'Connor's ruling "would revive a rule the district court declared unlawful."

The order does not decide the challengers' appeal, which continues in the 5th Circuit.